• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity and 프라그마틱 (45Listing.com) the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

However, it is difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, 프라그마틱 but it is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting significant differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.